Home Page

Saturday, May 6

Martyrdom Day

Two verses from the Holy Quran are engraved On the Unknown Soldier Monument located on Qassiun mount say;
Think not of those who are slain in Allah's Way as dead. Nay, they live, finding their sustenance in the Presence of their Lord; They rejoice in the Bounty provided by Allah: and with regard to those left behind, who have not yet joined them (in their bliss), the (Martyrs) glory in the fact that on them is no fear, nor have they (cause to) grieve." [3:169-170].

19 Comments:

  • " ولا تحسبن الذين قتلوا في سبيل الله أمواتاً, بل أحيائن عند ربهم يرزقون"

    By Blogger AhmadK, at 6/5/06 9:23 PM  

  • Wow, I cant believe i forgot this day. I feel like shit.

    bless them. and thank you ghalia for a beautiful post.

    By Blogger Yazan, at 6/5/06 9:49 PM  

  • It is good to see those who gave their lives for God being honored. It reminds me of Veterans Day here in the US where they are honored and a reef is laid at the Tomb of the unknown Soldier.

    By Blogger chet, at 6/5/06 11:55 PM  

  • Somebody with a better knowledge of history please correct me... but didn't the Syrian government create this tomb? Are they trying to pretend that fighting for the government is "fighting in Allah's way?"

    By Blogger yaman, at 7/5/06 4:46 AM  

  • As a veteran from the US armed forces I feel it is important that those who gave their lives for God and their country should be honored. Every country should give them credit for what there veterans fought for. Yes the Syrian government might have set this up so to speak but it is honoring those who gave their lives for God and their country. They fought for what they believed was right. Do not discredit them but give them there just due.

    By Blogger chet, at 7/5/06 6:54 AM  

  • I fully agree with chet.. Regardless what the Government intentions were when they built this monument, for me (and, I hope, for all us) it honours the sacrifices that those nopble men and women have made for the glory and freedom of our Country and her People. God bless them, and may their souls rest in peace.

    By Blogger The Syrian Brit, at 7/5/06 12:07 PM  

  • Yaman, This day was first found to honor the Martyrs of ottotmans that were hanged in Marjeh Square, I'm sure u know that.. and then it became the day for all martyrs, who died for their country.
    No matter how u put it, u cant say that Yousef al-Azmeh, died for a "regime"...
    It would've been better if they've expressed it with real poetry rather a religious symbol [I would've been more comfortable with that]...
    For me, This is a monument for those who die for their people, not Allah nor the regime...
    This momenument is just as much, also for the people who are dying inside syrian jails because of this regime, because those too are fighting for their people.
    They can control everything, except the slight moments and symbols in our lives, this day is one of them...

    By Blogger Yazan, at 7/5/06 5:38 PM  

  • دائما كتابتك رائعة وبمكانها
    أنا حبيت البمدونة جدا وراح أعملها لنك على البلوغ تبعي
    ممكن ؟؟؟

    By Blogger ayhm jzzan, at 8/5/06 1:44 PM  

  • @Yazan: I don't mean to sound rude and I'm seriously trying to make this as polite as the point can possibly be, but you don't have to feel comfortable with the Quranic ayat written down on the monument. I read a couple of your posts in your blog and I have to say, you and the people who think like you are a very small minority in Syria. Secularists tend to call for democracy, and in a democracy you would have very little (if not absolutly nil) voice since the majority would rule and alhamdullilah, the majority in Syria are not interested in people who think the Quran is not important. So it's a great thing the ayat were written down, it's actually a wonderful thing and I would pray for the day it would be written down all over the walls all over the place.

    By Blogger Abdul Rahman Hilmi, at 11/5/06 8:28 PM  

  • @Abdul Rahman Hilmi,
    I respect that, I was only sounding my own very-personal opinion, which I'd be allowed to sound it out in a democracy even if the majority doesnt want to take it...
    It's as simple as that.. I respect that the majority wants quranic verses. but I do have the right to say that "I" this one person doesnt.
    I believe in the rule of majority in a society [taking the basic principles of human rights and personal freedom into consideration]... and this is no different. ;)
    And this is written all over my blog btw.

    By Blogger Yazan, at 11/5/06 10:18 PM  

  • Before I start I would like to apologise to Ghalia because I'm going to start straying from the main topic. If it bothers you Ghalia just say so and I will not add another reply with absolutly no hard feelings.

    @akhi Yazan: I was in agreement with everything you said until I reach the following part.
    Yazan said: "I believe in the rule of majority in a society [taking the basic principles of human rights and personal freedom into consideration]"
    Correct me if I missunderstood, but you mean by this statement that if the "basic principles of human rights and personal freedom" is at stake, the rule of majority should not be applied? Coming from a person who does not believe the Quran should be applied as a rule of law, I take your definition of "basic principles of human rights and personal freedom" to mean those rights put down by other men (mainly European and American politicans and activists) throughout the years where they themselves state in the Human Rights Act 1998 protocol 1 article 3 that people should have the right to free elections with no such restrictions as those you're mentioning. So in other words, if humans in a society refuse the Western view of human rights and wish to have another view of the rights of man implemented on them, you will agree in breaking that very rule of the "human rights" that you stand for and inforcing some sort of forced freedoms? Don't you think such a view can only be labeled as (forgive me but) hypocritical? Don't you think this is a 'you can do what you want as long as what you want agrees with me' mentallity? It reminds me of the recent Palestinian elections. The West boasts democracy and the freedoms and when the Palestinians vote Hamas into office in a free election, the West boycotts the country from the very first day. This is the problem with man made laws, I can understand an atheist following them, but I will never be able to understand a Muslims who follows them.

    By Blogger Abdul Rahman Hilmi, at 12/5/06 12:15 AM  

  • Abdul Rahman,
    I dont wanna stray off the topic too... and let's be specific.

    Basic Human Rights, tayyeb, u refuse to take the standards set by "europeans and americans".. fine I understand. When intitiating a democratic system there should a conference to set these standards. Now let me put out my version.

    -The Right To Live
    -The Right to chose one's religion, or any other belief system.
    -The right to live in "equality" against the law, regardless from race, color, sex or religion.
    If an Islamic state, allows me to live freely as an athiest, with no discrimination against me, then that is my friend what they call "Secularism" the same term u use as an "insult" maybe.
    To be secular does not necessarilly mean to be anti-religion, or not religious... and I have MANY examples.
    My favorite is Khaled Al-Azm, who is by all means A religious, Muslem, believer, but when it comes to the state issues, his main goal was to serve his country, and country men, regardless of their beliefs...

    I'm just calling out My basic right, to express my Belief, without fear of emotional or physical discrimination.

    Would an Islamic state allow me to have a sexual relationship with my girlfriend with calling it, Adultry... without the fear of goin to prison, for something that is very human and normal and mutually agreed upon.

    Am I gonna be allowed to form a Secular party?
    Am I gonna be prosecuted because I dont agree wih u that god created earth in 7 days?
    Is my future wife, or gf or whatever will have to wear Hijab, even if she didnt believe in it?
    Are other people who are not Muslems, will be called "Kuffar" as it was until last year in Saudi Arabia?
    Do u think that the Majority has the right to tell me what to believe in?

    The funny thing is, I would use the same argument U USED. I believe in Man-Made laws, EXACTLY because they're man made, because I believe that Human Race is limit-less, they created soo many Gods through History and they've destroyed them. That's how great we are, we ARE GOD. "Personal Opinion"

    By Blogger Yazan, at 13/5/06 8:41 AM  

  • You still didn't answer my question ya Yazad. If the majority of the people do not agree with those rights that you listed (which I will go through later in the post inshallah) what would your reaction be? Something similar to the Algerian government back in 1992 "elections". Read the period between 1989 and 1992 if you don't know what I'm talking about. This is actually the only way what you're saying could be possible. Call for an election like any democratic person would, and when it is obvious to you that the people don't like what you like, bring in the army and call a state of emergency; the typical response of any Arab country.

    Yazan said: "When intitiating a democratic system there should a conference to set these standards."
    Where did you conclude that from? Nowhere does it say in any human rights act that there are basic principles that cannot be changed through regular elections. And anyway, going along with you, let us say just hypothetically that that is true, who opens the conference? Who attends the conference? Only people that agree with you and the Western human rights acts? Who gives those people the power to establish such unbreakable standards? The people? What if the people don't want these human rights? Like, as I showed above, what happened in Algeria. Or as I showed in my previous post, what happened in the last Palestinian elections. And I'm sure there are alot of other examples which I am not aware of.

    As for your first three points of what you believe is human rights; the first two I have no problem with, but I do not understand the third:
    Yazan said: "-The right to live in "equality" against the law, regardless from race, color, sex or religion."
    The right to live in equality AGAINST the law?

    Yazan said: "If an Islamic state, allows me to live freely as an athiest, with no discrimination against me, then that is my friend what they call "Secularism" the same term u use as an "insult" maybe."
    First of all, I didn't insult you neither did I intend to insult you. I called you a secularist because I knew you were, not out of offence.

    Secondly, that is not what secularism is. Secularism is the seperation of church from state. It is a reaction Europe was forced into after several years of Papal tyranny and dictatorship. A reaction whose consequences is something which some people wish to import into our own lands when we were never in our history forced into such circumstances as the Europeans were under Papist rule.

    Yazad said: "To be secular does not necessarilly mean to be anti-religion, or not religious... and I have MANY examples."
    Religous schools and the freedom to worship, build temples and the freedom of speech and meetings? That really amounts to nothing when the "obeying" part is in question. This is especially so in the case of Islam. Under secularism you have the right to lock yourself in a room and pray as long as you want, however, this is but a small part of our deen. Islamic law also delves into political, economic, judicial as well as societal rules and laws. It is a comprehensive system that deals with every part of human life and under secularism, only a part of it will be allowed, the rest is to be thrown into the dustbin of history.

    The reason why Europe went through the reneisance and the reformation, which actually is the basis point of secularism, is because the Catholic church simply had no guidance as to how to rule and thus it was left for the Pope to be a dictator by his own rights. This never happened on our lands, neither did we ever go through what Europe went through. Thus I do not see the sense in importing an ideology which was the consequence of something we never experienced.

    As for the other questions you gave, it will all fall under the shariah of Allah. Would you be allowed to fornicate? No. Would you be allowed to be an atheist? Yes. Would you be allowed to form a secular party, if you're talking about a political party (as opposed to simply a secularist gathering) then no. Would you be prosecuted for not believeing that god created the Earth in 7 days, no. Does your wife have to wear hijab in public? Yes. Would an athiest be called a kafir? Yes, according to Lisan al 3arab, al kafir is a person who disbelieves, refuses or witholds. With respect to a Muslim, you are one just like with respect to an Athiest, I am one. Finally, does the majority have the right to tell you what to believe? No.

    Yazan said: "I believe in Man-Made laws, EXACTLY because they're man made, because I believe that Human Race is limit-less, they created soo many Gods through History and they've destroyed them. That's how great we are, we ARE GOD. "Personal Opinion""
    For an athiest, creating so many gods throughout histroy should amount to absolutly nothing. I don't see how an athiest would take it as an inspiration that humans have the ability to carve statues and make up stories. On the contrary, the fact the humans created so many religions show not only that we disagree in alot of fundemental matters, but also that we are not perfect, neither mentally nor physically and are elligable to make millions of errors. Not even in a million years can we attain the position of perfection simply because of our limited capabilities and this is evidenced throughout the world's bloody history.

    By Blogger Abdul Rahman Hilmi, at 13/5/06 10:39 AM  

  • The Algerian example and the Hamas example are almost the same, and I agree with u.. almost about everything about them, they won the election. and they should have their chance to rule.. and the people WILL decide, but are they gonna be allowed to decide?...

    Tell me exactly, what if the Majority wins the election and changes the law into a NON-Majority law, into a law that constitues that THEY and only they will rule, somewhat like what's in Syria right now [and they werent a majority when they did that, but nevermind]... They ARE a majority at that point of time, and they changed the law, and that IS legal. now tell me what happens now?

    "-The right to live in "equality" against the law, regardless from race, color, sex or religion."

    Against here is not, in confrontation with the law, it means that infront of the Law, am I gonna be equal to Muslims, I think I have my answer, becuz ur obviously talking about a Sharia law... and that will never let me, in a million years, be equal to a Muslim.

    btw, I have a pretty clear idea about the history of secularism, I was just giving an example.

    A conference of all the aspects of the society, and talking about Syria in particular, Secularists are not a few.
    And, btw, here's the difefrence in the use of vocabulary,
    When u say that I'm not allowed to form a political party, I call that discrimination and prosecution for my beliefs.

    Let's go to the Sharia,
    Me, I was obviously born muslim, and at some point in time, I turned Atheist, "Murtad". In that imaginary state, How would u handle my case?

    Well, I believe in the genuisess of Man Kind, I believe in it cuz I believe in evolution.. and still amzed by the facts that come up everyday in that field, I can not explain that belief, just as much as u cant explain ur belief in a Godu've never seen, beliefs are simply beliefs, and should respected as it is.
    I believe in Man Made laws, because they got through thousands of years of fights and struggles and they are still moving forward.
    My point is, if they could creat gods like Aphrodite and Zeus [which are not The STATUES of them btw,.. they are gods just like Allah, for the people of that era] and they can destroy them and create new gods... that is quite genuis for me... considering the Concept of GOD...

    To answer ur question, what would I do if the majority does not approve me as a member of their state?
    I will leave thay state, and will grant my life to try to change, cuz I deeply belief that a state like that is not gonna survive... and the same people who elected them, will throw them away... but the thing is, ur not gonna give them the right to do that through ELECTIONS? are u?
    I mean, ur not gonna let secular political parties... and possibly other religions will face the same, Christianity, Yazidieh, Jeudism... how exactly are the people gonna be given the choice to CHANGE, in case "just in case... have u considered that tiny possibility, that they will not like it that way?".. how are they supposed to change?

    By Blogger Yazan, at 13/5/06 5:16 PM  

  • Abdul Rahman Hilmi,
    Yazan,

    Please consider the following,

    "Brevity is the soul of wit" - William Shakespeare

    Having said that, this post was originally about our martyrs.

    By Blogger Hattori Hanzo, at 14/5/06 11:32 AM  

  • Mr. Abdul Rahman,
    I'm sorry, I read around ur blog, and to be honest, I can not continue this discussion with u...
    I read some parts of ur Ideal Constitution, and they're soo disturbing that they fucked up my whole day.
    This is not a 20th century state what ur calling for, is "litterally" and NOT in a Sarcastic way, is to be back to the tents and horses.
    I'm sorry, Wish u all the luck in fighting for ur beliefs, but I can not respond to that kind of thinking. And I really dont mean any offense. I just can not find any argument that might work. because to me it's purly disturbing.

    http://www.hizb-ut-tahrir.info/english/constitution.htm

    I'll just put some of the Articles in the constitution that are just way over the line.

    Article 19
    No one is permitted to take charge of ruling, or any action considered to be of the nature of ruling, except a male who is free (Hurr), i.e. not a slave, mature (baaligh), sane (‘aaqil), trustworthy (‘adl), competent; and he must not be save a muslim.

    (SLAVE??? EXCUSE ME?.. Too Much(

    Article 112
    Women are not allowed to take charge of ruling, thus women cannot hold the positions of Khaleefah mu’aawin, waali, ‘aamil nor to practice any actions of ruling. She is not allowed to be a chief judge, a judge in maHkaamat ul-MuDHalim nor ameer of Jihad.

    This even worse than Whabism...
    I'm sorry, I respect ur ideas, but I simply can not respond to them, because I simply dont know how.

    By Blogger Yazan, at 14/5/06 12:50 PM  

  • I know you said you do not wish to continue the discussion, but I just thought I'd reply to your comments in your previous post and then get into your next one.


    Yazan said: "Tell me exactly, what if the Majority wins the election and changes the law into a NON-Majority law, into a law that constitues that THEY and only they will rule, somewhat like what's in Syria right now [and they werent a majority when they did that, but nevermind]... They ARE a majority at that point of time, and they changed the law, and that IS legal. now tell me what happens now?"
    When a party wins elections they win for a reason, it is because the majority of the people agree with what they stand for. Now if this party changed its stance after the elections and started doing things that are completely against the constitution they got elected for, then they shouldn't be surprised if a mass revolt took place like that in Algeria. This ofcourse, is not necessarily effective and the people would most likely be silenced under the pressure of the army, however at that point, the ruling party no longer has the support of the majority nor is the country democratic in anyway. You're giving me senarios which could happen anywhere any time and in any system. What would stop that same party doing what they will do when there is "fixed human rights laws" as you claim?


    Yazan said: "Against here is not, in confrontation with the law, it means that infront of the Law, am I gonna be equal to Muslims, I think I have my answer, becuz ur obviously talking about a Sharia law... and that will never let me, in a million years, be equal to a Muslim."
    What equality are you talking about? Indeed there are certain rules that differentiates between a Muslim and a non-Muslim, however this certainly does not mean the Muslims will be stepping all over the non-Muslims. You should realise that such seperation of the people exists in every secular country in the world. It's call citizenship rights. The difference is, in a secular country the basis of who has more rights than who depends on where your mother gave birth to you (as a basis and then each country gives citizenships with respect to its laws). The reason they have such laws is purely economical and to be able to control labour values. This is a country that is based on the market and this is how it divides people within it's boundaries. Now compare a country whose basis is Islam, it will indeed divde people, but not on the basis of where your mother laid birth to you, but on the basis of how you think. These values do not change (as citizenship laws change) with according to the market and unemployment. The standard the Islamic country stands on is not the market, it is the ideology, the pure Islamic ideology. Add to that, we will not be stripping the non-Muslim of his citizenship, the mercy of Islam extends over everyone that lives within the boundaries of the state for our deen is for the whole of mankind. What rights are you worried that we will strip away from a non-Muslim? Since you have already seen the constitution, let me quote a few things from there:
    Article 7 section b states;
    Non-Muslims are allowed to follow their own beliefs and worships.

    secton d:
    In matters of food and clothing the non-Muslims are treated according to their religions within the limits allowed by aHkam Shara’iah.

    section e:
    Marital affairs (including divorce) among non-Muslims are settled in accordance with their religions, but between non-Muslims and Muslims they are settled according to the aHkaam shar’iyyah.

    section f:
    All the remaining shar’i matters and rules, such as: the application of transactions, punishments and evidences (at court), the system of ruling and economics are implemented by the State upon everyone, Muslim and non-Muslim alike. This includes the people of treaties (mu’aahid), the protected subjects (ahludh dhimmah) and all who submit to the authority of Islam. The implementation on these people is the same as the implementation on the subjects of the State. Ambassadors and envoys enjoy diplomatic immunity.

    Article 20 states:
    Calling upon the rulers to account for their actions is both a right for the Muslims and a farD kifaayah (collective duty) upon them. Non-Muslim subjects have the right to make known their complaints about the rulers’ injustice and misapplication of the Islamic rules upon them.

    Article 101 states:
    The members of the Majlis al-Ummah are those people who represent the Muslims in respect of expressing their views to the Khaleefah when consulted. Non-Muslims are allowed to be members of the Majlis al-Ummah so that they can voice their complaints in respect to unjust acts performed by the rulers or the misapplication of the Islamic laws.

    Article 140 states:
    Jizyah (head-tax) is collected from the non-Muslims (dhimmis). It is to be taken from the mature men if they are financially capable of paying it. It is not taken from women or children.

    And as in article 145, the Muslims and non-Muslims both would pay the same amount of tax. The non-Muslims will pay the jizyah when the Muslim will have to pay the Zakaat. So no one is being singeled out and tortured.


    Yazan, as for your question on political parties, murtadoon, and any others, these are Islamic laws. Read this;
    "Hizb ut-Tahrir is a political group and not a priestly one. Nor is it an academic, educational or a charity group." This is from the party's website. I am not here to convert anyone to Islam so I will not spend too much time trying to convince a non-Muslim on every aspect or every single Islamic law. There are rules that have been clearly stated in the Quran and sunnah and I believe there is no argument about that. If the law is not clearly put, then there is ijtihaad to research and come up with an understanding and interpretation. Ijtihaad is open for all the people of knowledge and they can change what could be changed of the laws as Islamically allowable. It is the progress and the pumping life of Islam.


    Yazan said: "To answer ur question, what would I do if the majority does not approve me as a member of their state?
    I will leave thay state, and will grant my life to try to change, cuz I deeply belief that a state like that is not gonna survive... and the same people who elected them, will throw them away... but the thing is, ur not gonna give them the right to do that through ELECTIONS? are u?
    I mean, ur not gonna let secular political parties... and possibly other religions will face the same, Christianity, Yazidieh, Jeudism... how exactly are the people gonna be given the choice to CHANGE, in case "just in case... have u considered that tiny possibility, that they will not like it that way?".. how are they supposed to change?"
    Change from what? Islam? So that we will be thrown to another 80 years of horrid disunity, war, blood, famine and oppression? Have you not realised that the only time in history that we ever lived in security was under the Islamic rule? That the only time in history that we were at the forefront of technology was under Islamic rule? Poetry, art and architecture? We have tried everything since the fall of the Uthmanees, socialism, communism, tribalism and even facism under Nasser. We tasted the bombs of Capitalism or what you call democracy and felt the direct colonisation of the past and the indirect colonisation of today. Even though the last years of the uthmanees were indeed oppresive, yet they are nothing compared to today.

    Now for your second post.

    Yazan said: "This is not a 20th century state what ur calling for, is "litterally" and NOT in a Sarcastic way, is to be back to the tents and horses."
    We are calling for the re-establishment of the Khilafah. We are calling for placing a Khalifah for all the Muslims from Indonesia to Morrocco. We are calling for the unity of people who speak the same language, have the same belief, pray in the same direction, working towards the same aim and love one another as brothers and sisters like no other nation on Earth. Why shouldn't a unity such as this be possible to materialise?

    “There are people who control spacious territories teeming with manifest and hidden resources. They dominate the intersections of world routes. Their lands were the cradles of human civilizations and religions. These people have one faith, one language, one history and the same aspirations. No natural barriers can isolate these people from one another ... if, per chance, this nation were to be unified into one state, it would then take the fate of the world into its hands and would separate Europe from the rest of the world. Taking these considerations seriously, a foreign body should be planted in the heart of this nation to prevent the convergence of its wings in such a way that it could exhaust its powers in never-ending wars. It could also serve as a springboard for the West to gain its coveted objects.” - 1902 - Sir Campbell Bannerman, Prime Minister of Britain [1905-08]

    As for article 19 and the mentioning of slaves in the constitution, this is a general rule that has been placed in full in the article. This does not mean we endorce slavery in anyway, on the contrary there is sufficient evidence that slavery is to be abolished Islamically. Add to that, the Arabic version does not mention slaves, it only says hurr (ie, free) and does not mention aabd (slave) this could apply to any restrictions which the ruler must not have on him in order to carry out his ruling.

    As for article 112; again, this is Islamic concepts. Article 9 states that ijtihaad is the right of every Muslim. If a Muslim does not agree with one of the concepts and can prove it from the Quran and Sunnah, then the rule will be changed.

    This is a short biography of the founder of the Islamic Liberation Party, Taqi ul Deen al Nabahani if anyone's interested. The party was established in the 1930s, we are not Wahabees, nor are we militant jihadees.

    By Blogger Abdul Rahman Hilmi, at 14/5/06 2:38 PM  

  • I just want to thank you, for ur time.. we obviously have spaces between us... but it was a vibrant experience for me, it opened my mind a bit more...

    One of the things that I vividly understand from ur post, is that, I would be "legally" killed.. for I am a Murtad.

    nonetheless, I still have nothing more to say really...

    I hope that u dont mind, I took the liberty of publishing the discussion on my blog, so it would be possible for other people to reach in.

    Good luck.

    By Blogger Yazan, at 14/5/06 3:35 PM  

  • And thank you for a clean and polite discussion.

    By Blogger Abdul Rahman Hilmi, at 14/5/06 3:55 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Top